Letters on Tactics[9]

Written:Written between April 8 and 13 (21 and 26), 1917Published:Published as a pamphlet in April 1917 by Priboi Publishers.
      Published according to the pamphlet text.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,
      Progress Publishers,1964,
      Moscow,Volume 24,
      pages42-54.Translated:Isaacs BernardTranscription\Markup:UnknownPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive
      1999
      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

On April 4, 1917, I had occasion to make a report on the
subject indicated in the title, first, at a meeting of Bolsheviks
in Petrograd. These were delegates to the All-Russia Conference of
Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, who had to
leave for their homes and therefore could not allow me to postpone
it. After the meeting, the chairman, Comrade G. Zinoviev, asked me
on behalf of the whole assembly to repeat my report immediately at
a joint meeting of Bolshevik and Menshevik delegates, who wished
to discuss the question of unifying theRussian
Social-Democratic Labour Party.

Difficult though it was for me immediately to repeat my
report, I felt that I had no right to refuse once this was
demanded of me bymy comrades-in-ideasas well as by the
Mensheviks, who, because of their impending departure, really
could not grant me a delay.

In making my report, I read the theses which were published in
No. 26 of Pravda, onApril 7,
1917.[1]

Both the theses and my report gave rise to differences of
opinion among the Bolsheviks themselves and the editors ofPravda.After a number of consultations, we unanimously
concluded that it would be advisableopenlyto discuss
our differences, and thus provide material for the All-Russia
Conference of our Party (the Russian Social-DemocraticLabour
Party, united under the Central Committee) which is to meet in
Petrograd on April 20, 1917.

Complying with this decision concerning a discussion, I am
publishing the followinglettersin which I do not claim
to have made anexhaustivestudy of the question, but
wish merely to outline the principal arguments, which are
especially essential for thepracticaltasks of the
working-class movement.

First Letter
	       Assesment of the Present Situation

Marxism requires of us a strictly exact and objectively
verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the
concrete features peculiar to each historical situation. We
Bolsheviks have always tried to meet this requirement, which is
absolutely essential for giving a scientific foundation to
policy.

“Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to
action,”[10]Marx
and Engels always said, rightly ridiculing the mere memorising and
repetition of “formulas”, that at best are capable only of marking
outgeneraltasks, which are necessarily modifiable by
theconcreteeconomic and political conditions of each
particularperiodof the historical process.

What, then, are the clearly established objectivefactswhich the party of the revolutionary
proletariat must now be guided by in defining the tasks and forms
of its activity?

Both in my firstLetter From Afar(“The First Stage
of the First Revolution”) published inPravdaNos. 14 and
15, March 21 and 22,1917, and in my theses, I define
“the specific feature of the present situation in Russia” as a
period oftransitionfrom the first stage of the
revolution to the second. I therefore considered the basic slogan,
the “task of the day” atthismoment to be: “Workers, you
have performed miracles of proletarian heroism, the heroism of the
people, in the civil war against tsarism. You must perform
miracles of organisation, organisation of the proletariat and of
the whole people, to prepare the way for yourvictory in the
second stage of the revolution”(PravdaNo. 15).[2]

What, then, is the first stage?

It is the passing of state power to the bourgeoisie.

Before the February-March revolution of1917,state power in Russia was in the hands of one old class, namely,
the feudal landed nobility, headed by Nicholas Romanov.

After the revolution, the power is in the hands of adifferentclass, a new class, namely, thebourgeoisie.

The passing of state power from oneclassto another
is the first, the principal, the basic sign of arevolution,both in the strictly scientific and in the
practical political meaning of that term.

To this extent, the bourgeois, or the bourgeois-democratic,
revolution in Russia iscompleted.

But at this point we hear a clamour of protest from people who
readily call themselves “old Bolsheviks”. Didn’t we always
maintain, they say, that the bourgeois-democratic revolution is
completed only by the “revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry”? Is the agrarian revolution, which
is also a bourgeois-democratic revolution, completed? Is it not a
fact, on the contrary, that it hasnot evenstarted?

My answer is: The Bolshevik slogans and ideason the
wholehave been confirmed by history; butconcretelythings have worked outdiflerently;they are more
original, more peculiar, more variated than anyone could have
expected.

To ignore or overlook this fact would mean taking after those
“old Bolsheviks” who more than once already have played so
regrettable a role in the history of our Party by reiterating
formulas senselesslylearned by roteinstead ofstudyingthe specific features of the new and living
reality.

’The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry” hasalreadybecome a
reality[3]in the Russian revolution, for this “formula”
envisages only arelation of classes, and not aconcrete political institution implementingthis
relation, this co-operation. “The Soviet of Workers’ and
Soldiers’ Deputies”—there you have the
“revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry” already accomplished in reality.

This formula is already antiquated. Events have moved it from
tile realm of formulas into the realm of reality, clothed it with
flesh and bone, concretised it andtherebymodified
it.

A new and different task now faces us: to effect a splitwithinthis dictatorship between the proletarian elements
(the anti-defencist, internationalist, “Communist” elements, who
stand for a transition to the commune) and thesmall-proprietororpetty-bourgeoiselements (Chkheidze,
Tsereteli, Steklov, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the other
revolutionary defencists, who are opposed to moving towards the
commune and are in favour of “supporting” the bourgeoisie and the
bourgeois
government).[4]

The person whonowspeaks only of a “revolutionary
democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” is
behind the times, consequently, he has in effectgone
overto the petty bourgeoisie against the proletarian class
struggle; that person should be consigned to the archive of
“Bolshevik” pre-revolutionary antiques (it may be called the
archive of “old Bolsheviks”).

The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat
and the peasantry has already been realised, but in a highly
original manner, and with a number of extremely important
modifications. I shall deal with them separately in one of my next
letters. For the present, it is essential to grasp the
incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognisance of real
life, of the true facts ofreality,and not cling to a
theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only
outlines the main and the general, onlycomes nearto
embracing life in all its complexity.

“Theory, my friend, is grey, but green is the eternal tree of
life.”[11]

To deal with the question of “completion” of the bourgeois
revolutionin the old wayis to sacrifice living Marxism
to the dead letter.

According to the old way of thinking, the rule of the
bourgeoisie could and should befollowedby the rule of
the proletariat and the peasantry, by their dictatorship.

In real life, however, things havealreadyturned outdifferently;there has been an extremely original, novel
and unprecedentedinterlacing of the one with the other.We have side by side, existing together, simultaneously,boththe rule of the bourgeoisie (the government of Lvov
and Guchkov) and a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry, which isvoluntarilyceding power to the bourgeoisie, voluntarily making itself an
appendage of the bourgeoisie.

For it must not be forgotten that actually, in Petrograd, the
power is in the hands of the workers and soldiers; the new
government isnotusing and cannot use violence against
them, becausethere is nopolice,noarmy standing apart from the people,noofficialdom
standing all-powerfulabovetbe people. This is a fact,
the kind of fact that is characteristic of a state of the Paris
Commune type. This fact does not fit into the old schemes. One
must know how to adapt schemes to facts, instead of reiterating
the now meaningless words about a “dictatorship of the
proletariat and the peasantry”in general.

To throw more light on this question let us approach it from
another angle.

A Marxist must not abandon the ground of careful analysis of
class relations. The bourgeoisie is in power. But is not the mass
of the peasantsalsoa bourgeoisie, only of a different
social stratum, of a different kind, of a different character?
Whence does it follow thatthisstratumcannotcome to power, thus “completing” the bourgeois-democratic
revolution? Why should this be impossible?

This is how the old Bolsheviks often argue.

My reply is that it is quite possible. But, in assessing a
given situation, a Marxist must proceednotfrom what is
possible, but from what is real.

And the reality reveals thefactthat freely elected
soldiers’ and peasants’ deputies are freely joining
the second, parallel government, and are freely supplementing,
developing and completing it. And, just as freely, they aresurrenderingpower to the bourgeoisie—a fact
which does not in the least contravene the theory of Marxism, for
we have always known and repeatedly pointed out that the
bourgeoisie maintains itself in powernotonly by force
but,also by virtue of the lack of class-consciousness and
organisation, the routinism and downtrodden state of the
masses.

In view of this present-day reality, it is simply ridiculous
to turn one’s back on the fact and talk about
“possibilities”.

Possibly the peasantry may seize all the land and all the
power. Far from forgetting this possibility, far from confining
myself to the present, I definitely and clearly formulate the
agrarian programme, taking into account thenewphenomenon, i.e., the deeper cleavage between the agricultural
labourers and the poor peasants on the one hand, and the peasant
proprietors on the other.

But there is also another possibility; it is possible that the
peasants will take the advice of the petty-bourgeois party of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, which has yielded to the influence of
the bourgeoisie, has adopted a defencist stand, and which advises
waiting for the Constituent Assembly, although not even the date
of its convocation has yet been
fixed.[5]

It is possible that the peasants willmaintainand
prolong their deal with the bourgeoisie, a deal which they have
now concluded through the Soviets of Workers’ and
Soldiers’ Deputies not only in form, but in fact.

Many things are possible. It would be a great mistake to
forget the agrarian movement and the agrarian programme. But it
would be no less a mistake to forget thereality,which
reveals the fact that anagreement,or—to use a
more exact, less legal, but more class-economic term—class
collaborationexists between the bourgeoisie and
the peasantry.

When this fact ceases to be a fact, when the peasantry
separates from the bourgeoisie, seizes the land and power despite
the bourgeoisie, that will be a new stage in the
bourgeois-democratic revolution; and that matter will be dealt
with separately.

A Marxist who, in view of the possibility of such a future
stage, were to forget his duties inthe present,when the
peasantry isin agreementwith the bourgeoisie, would
turn petty bourgeois. For he would in practice be preaching to the
proletariatconfidencein the petty bourgeoisie (“this
petty bourgeoisie, this peasantry, must separate from the
bourgeoisie while the bourgeois-democratic revolution is still
on”). Because of the “possibility” of so pleasing and sweet a
future, in which the peasantry wouldnotbe the tail of
the bourgeoisie, in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the
Chkheidzes, Tseretelis, and Steklovs wouldnotbe an
appendage of the bourgeois government—because of the
“possibility” of so pleasing a future, he would be forgettingthe unpleasant present,in which the peasantry still
forms the tail of the bourgeoisie, and in which the Socialist-
Revolutionaries and Social-Democrats have not yet given up their
role as an appendage of the bourgeois government, as “His Majesty”
Lvov’s
Opposition.[12]

This hypothetical person would resemble a sweetish Louis
Blanc, or a sugary Kautskyite, but certainly not a revolutionary
Marxist.

But are we not in danger of falling into subjectivism, of
wanting to arrive at the socialist revolution by “skipping” the
bourgeois-democratic revolution—which is not yet completed
and has not yet exhausted the peasant movement?

I might be incurring this danger if I said: “No Tsar, but aworkers’
government.”[13]But I didnotsay that, I said something else. I said that therecan be nogovernment (barring a bourgeois government) in
Russiaother thanthat of the Soviets of Workers’,
Agricultural Labourers’, Soldiers’, and
Peasants’ Deputies.I said that power in Russia now can pass
from Guchkov and Lvovonlyto these Soviets. And in these
Soviets, as it happens, it is the peasants, the soldiers, i.e.,
petty bourgeoisie, who preponderate, to use a scientific, Marxist
term, a class characterisation, and not a common,
man-in-the-street, professional characterisation.

In my theses, I absolutely ensured myself against skipping over the peasant movement, which has not outlived itself, or the
petty-bourgeois movement in general, against anyplayingat “seizure of power” by a workers’ government, against any
kind of Blanquist adventurism; for I pointedlyreferred to the
experience of the Paris Commune. And this experience, as we know,
and as Marx proved at length in 1871 and Engels in
1891,[14]absolutely excludes Blanquism, absolutely ensures the direct,
immediate and unquestionable rule of themajorityand the
activity of the masses only to the extent that the majority itself
actsconsciously.

In the theses, I very definitely reduced the question to one
ofa struggle for influence withinthe Soviets of
Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’, Peasants’,
and Soldiers’ Deputies.To leave no shadow of doubt on this
score, Itwiceemphasised in the theses the need for
patient and persistent “explanatory” work “adapted to thepracticalneeds of themasses”.

Ignorant persons or renegades from Marxism, like
Mr. Plekhanov, may shout about anarchism, Blanquism, and so
forth. But those who want to think and learn cannot fail to
understand that Blanquism means the seizure of power by a
minority, whereas the Soviets areadmittedlythe direct
and immediate organisation of themajorityof the
people. Work confined to a struggle for influencewithinthese Soviets cannot, simplycannot,stray into the swamp
of Blanquism. Nor can it stray into the swamp of anarchism, for
anarchism deniesthe needfor a state and state
powerin the period oftransitionfrom the rule of
the bourgeoisie to the rule of the proletariat, whereas I, with a
precision that precludes any possibility of misinterpretation,advocatethe need for a state in this period, although,
in accordance with Marx and the lessons of the Paris Commune, I
advocate not the usual parliamentary bourgeois state, but a statewithouta standing army,withouta police
opposed to the people,withoutan officialdom placed
above the people.

When Mr. Plekhanov, in his newspaperYedinstvo,shouts with all his might that this is anarchism, he is merely
giving further proof of his break with Marxism. Challenged by me
inPravda (No. 26)to tell us what Marx and
Engels taught on the subject in 1871, 1872 and
1875,[6]Mr. Plekhanov
canonly preserve silence on the question at issue and shout out
abuse after the manner of the enraged bourgeoisie.

Mr. Plekhanov, the ex-Marxist, hasabsolutelyfailed
to understand the Marxist doctrine of the state. Incidentally,the
germs of this lack of understanding are also to he found in his
German pamphlet on
anarchism.[15]

Now let
us see how Comrade Y. Kamenev, inPravdaNo. 27,
formulates his “disagreements” with my theses and with the views
expressed above. This will help us to grasp them more
clearly.

“As for Comrade Lenin’s
general scheme,” writes Comrade Kamenev, “it appears to us
unacceptable, inasmuch as it proceeds from the assumption that the
bourgeois-democratic revolution iscompleted,and builds
on the immediate transformation of this revolution into a
socialist revolution.’

“As for Comrade Lenin’s
general scheme,” writes Comrade Kamenev, “it appears to us
unacceptable, inasmuch as it proceeds from the assumption that the
bourgeois-democratic revolution iscompleted,and builds
on the immediate transformation of this revolution into a
socialist revolution.’

There are two big mistakes here.

First. The question of “completion” of the
bourgeois-democratic revolution isstatedwrongly. The
question is put in an abstract, simple, so to speak one-colour,
way, which doesnotcorrespond to the objective
reality. To put the questionthis way,to asknow“whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution is
completed” and sayno more,is to prevent oneself from
seeing the exceedingly complex reality, which, is at least
two-coloured. This is in theory. In practice, it means
surrendering helplessly topetty-bourgeois revolutionism.

Indeed, reality shows usboththe passing of power
into the hands of the bourgeoisie (a “completed”
bourgeois-democratic revolution of the usual type) and, side by
side with the real government, the existence of a parallel
government which represents the “revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”. This “second
government” hasitselfceded the power to the
bourgeoisie, has chaineditselfto the bourgeois
government.

Is this reality covered by Comrade Kamenev’s
old-Bolshevik formula, which says that “the bourgeois-democratic
revolution is not completed”?

It is not. The formula is obsolete. It is no good at all. It
is dead. And it is no use trying to revive it.

Second. A practical question. Who knows whether it is still
possible at present for a special “revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”,detachedfrom the bourgeois government, to emerge in
Russia? Marxist tactics cannot be based on the unknown.

Butifthis is still possible, then there is one, and
only one, way towards it, namely, an immediate, resolute, and
irrevocable separation of the proletarian Communist elements from
the petty-bourgeois elements.

Because the entire petty bourgeoisie has, not by chance but of
necessity, turned towards chauvinism (=defencism), towards
“support” of the bourgeoisie, towards dependence on it, towards
thefearof having to do without it, etc., etc.

How can the petty bourgeoisie be “pushed” into power, if even
now it can take the power, butdoes not want to?

This can be done only by separating the proletarian, the
Communist, party, by waging a proletarian class strugglefree
fromthe timidity of those petty bourgeois. Only the
consolidation of the proletarians who are free from the influence
of the petty bourgeoisie in deed and not only in word can make the
ground so hot under the feet of the petty bourgeoisie that it will
beobligedunder certain circumstances to take the power;
it is even within the bounds of possibility that Guchkov and
Milyukov—again under certain circumstances—will be
forgiving full and sole power to Chkheidze, Tsereteli, the S.R.s,
and Steklov, since, after all, these are “defencists”.

To separate the proletarian elements of the Soviets (i.e., the
proletarian, Communist, party) from the petty-bourgeois elements
right now, immediately and irrevocably, is to give correct
expression to the interests of the movement ineitherof
two possible events: in the event that Russia will yet experience
a special “dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”
independent of the bourgeoisie, and in the event that the petty
bourgeoisie will not be able to tear itself away from the
bourgeoisie and will oscillate eternally (that is, until socialism
is established) between us and it.

To be guided in one’s activities merely by the simple
formula, “the bourgeois-democratic revolution is not completed”,
is like taking it upon oneself to guarantee that the petty
bourgeoisie is definitely capable of being independent of the
bourgeoisie. To do so is to throw oneself at the given moment on
the mercy of the petty bourgeoisie.

Incidentally, in connection with the “formula” of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, it is worth
mentioning that, inTwo Tactics(July 1905), I made a
point of emphasising(Twelve Years,p. 435[16]) this:

“Like everything else in the world, the
revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry has a past and a future. Its past is autocracy, serfdom,
monarchy, and privilege....Its future is the struggle against
private property, the struggle of the wage-worker against the
employer, the struggle for
socialism....”[7]

Comrade Kamenev’s mistake is that even in 1917 he sees
onlythe pastof the revolutionary-democratic
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. As a matter of
fact itsfuturehas already begun, for the interests and
policies of the wage-worker and the petty proprietor haveactuallydiverged already, even in such an important
question as that of “defencism”, that of the attitude towards the
imperialist war.

This brings me to the second mistake in Comrade
Kamenev’s argument quoted above. He criticises me, saying
that my scheme “builds” on “the immediate transformation of this
{bourgeois-democratic} revolution into a socialist
revolution”.

This is incorrect. I not only do not “build” on the “immediate
transformation” of our revolution into asocialistone,
but I actually warn against it, when
inThesis
No. 8, I state:

“It isnotourimmediatetask to
’introduce’
socialism...”.[8]

Is it not clear that no person who builds on the immediate
transformation of our revolution into a socialist revolution could
be opposed to the immediate task of introducing socialism?

Moreover, even a “commune state” (i.e., a state organised
along the lines of the Paris Commune)cannotbe
introduced in Russia “immediately”, because to do that it would be
necessary for themajorityof the deputies in all (or in
most) Soviets to clearly recognise all the erroneousness and harm
of the tactics and policy pursued by the S.R.s, Chkheidze,
Tsereteli, Steklov, etc. As for me, I declared unmistakably that
in this respect I “build” only on “patient” explaining(does one
have to be patient to bring about a change which can be effected
“immediately”?).

Comrade Kamenev has somewhat overreached himself in his
eagerness, and has repeated the bourgeois prejudice about the
Paris Commune having wanted to introduce socialism
“immediately”. This is not so. The Commune, unfortunately, was too
slow in introducing socialism. The real essence of the Commune is
not where the bourgeois usually looks for it, but in the creation
of astateof a special type. Such a state hasalreadyarisen in Russia, it is the Soviets of
Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies!

Comrade Kamenev has not pondered on thefact,the
significance, of theexistingSoviets, their identity, in
point of type and socio-political character, with the commune
state, and instead of studying thefact,he began to talk
about something I was supposed to be “building” on for the
“immediate” future. The result is, unfortunately, a repetition of
the method used by many bourgeois: from the question as towhat arethe Soviets, whether they are of ahighertype than a parliamentary republic, whether they
aremore usefulfor the people,more democratic, more
convenientfor the struggle, for combating, for instance, the
grain shortage, etc.—from this real, urgent, vital issue,
attention is diverted to the empty, would-be scientific, but
actually hollow, professorially dead question of “building on an
immediate transformation”.

Anidle question falsely presented. I “build”onlyon this,exclusivelyon this—that
the workers, soldiers and peasants will deal better than the
officials, better than the police, with the difficultpractical,problems of producing more grain, distributing
it better and keeping the soldiers better supplied, etc.,
etc.

I am deeply convinced that the Soviets will make the
independent activity of themassesa reality more quickly
and effectively than will a parliamentary republic (I shall
compare the two types of states in greater detail in another
letter). They will more effectively, more practically and more
correctly decide whatstepscan be taken towards
socialism and how these steps should be taken. Control over abank,
the merging of all banks into one, isnot yetsocialism,
but it isa step towardssocialism. Today such steps are
beingtaken in Germany by the Junkers and the bourgeoisie against
the people. Tomorrow the Soviet will be able to take these steps
more effectively for the benefit of the people if the whole state
power is in its hands.

Whatcompelssuch steps?

Famine. Economic disorganisation. Imminent collapse. The
horrors of war. The horrors of the wounds inflicted on mankind by
the war.

Comrade Kamenev concludes his article with the remark that “in
a broad discussion he hopes to carry his point of view, which is
the only possible one for revolutionary Social-Democracy if it
wishes to and should remain to the very end the party of the
revolutionary masses of the proletariat and not turn into a group
of Communist propagandists”.

It seems to me that these words betray a completely erroneous
estimate of the situation. Comrade Kamenev contraposes to a
“party of the masses” a “group of propagandists”. But the
“masses” have now succumbed to the craze of “revolutionary”
defencism. Is it not more becoming for internationalists at this
moment to show that they can resist “mass” intoxication rather
than to “wish to remain” with the masses, i.e., to succumb to
the general epidemic? Have we not seen how in all the
belligerent countries of Europe the chauvinists tried to justify
themselves on the grounds that they wished to “remain with the
masses”? Must we not be able to remain for a time in the
minority against the “mass” intoxication? Is It not the work of
the propagandists at the present moment that forms the key point
fordisentanglingthe proletarian line from the
defencist and petty-bourgeois “mass” intoxication? It was this
fusion of the masses, proletarian and non-proletarian,
regardless of class differences within the masses, that formed
one of the conditions for the defencist epidemic. To speak
contemptuously of a “group of propagandists” advocating aproletarianline does not seem to be very
becoming.

[1]I reprint these theses together with the brief comment from the same
issue ofPravdaas an appendix to this letter. —Lenin

[2][PLACEHOLDER]
—Ed.

[3]In a certain form and to a
certain extent. —Lenin

[4]["THESE PEOPLE" ?!?!  WHERE DOES THIS NOTE COME FROM?]These people and theSR partybelieved in supporting bourgeois governments as the sucessor to
tsarism. Following the establishment of bourgeois government, they
believed they would then organise the workers to form a Socialist
government. They were in support of the Russian Provisional
government of 1917, and after the Bolshevik revolution restarted
their terrorist tactics, now against the Bolshevik government,
with the hope of brining back a bourgeois government to rule
Russia, in order so that they could replace it in due time with a
“true” workers’ government.
—Ed.

[5]Lest my words be misinterpreted, I
shall say at once that I am positively in favour of theSovietsof Agricultural Labourers and Peasantsimmediatelytaking overallthe land; but they
shouldthemselvesobserve the strictest order and
discipline, not permit the slightest dam age to machines,
structures, or livestock, and in no case disorganise agriculture
and grain production, but ratherdevelopthem, for the
soldiers needtwiceas much bread, and the people must
not be allowed to starve.  —Lenin

[6][PLACEHOLDER.]
—Ed.

[7][PLACEHOLDER.]
—Ed.

[8][PLACEHOLDER.]
—Ed.

[9][PLACEHOLDER.]

[10][2]Quotedfrom Engels’s letter to F. A. Serge
dated November 29, 1886.

[11]Leninhere quotes the
words of Mephistopheles from Goethe’s tragedyFaust. Erster
Teil, Studierzimmer.

[12]Theexpression “His Majesty’s Opposition” belongs to
P. N. Milyukov, the leader of theCadet
Party. In a speech made at a luncheon given by the Lord Mayor
of London on June 19 (July 2), 1909, Milyukov said: “So long as
there is a legislative chamber in Russia which controls the
budget, the Russian Opposition will remain the Opposition of His
Majesty, not to His Majesty” (Flerh No. 167, June 21 [July 4]. 1909).

[13]“NoTsar, but a workers’ government” was a
an anti-Bolshevik
slogan put forward in 1905 by Parvus and Trotsky. This sloganof a revolution without the peasantry, which became one of the basic
postulates of counter-revolutionary Trotskyism, was sharply criticised
by Lenin.

[14][PLACEHOLDER.]

[15][PLACEHOLDER.]

[16][PLACEHOLDER.]